RBU MUN 2.
UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
BACKGROUND GUIDE
Agenda- Evaluating The Geopolitical Repercussions and Existential
Threats to International Peace and Security arising from United States
Military Interventions in Syria.
Letter from the Executive Board
Dear Esteemed Delegates,
It is with great pleasure and anticipation that we extend our heartfelt
welcome to the distinguished participants of the RBU 2.0 United Nations
Security Council (UNSC) committee. This gathering represents a unique
opportunity for diplomatic discourse and collaboration on the imperative
topic of "Evaluating The Geopolitical Repercussions and Existential Threats to
International Peace and Security arising from United States Military
Interventions in Syria."
As we embark on this intellectual journey, we encourage each delegate to
embrace the challenge of navigating the intricate dynamics of the UNSC.
Your diverse perspectives and collective efforts are integral to crafting
pragmatic solutions that address the complexities of international peace and
security.
This comprehensive background guide has been meticulously curated to
empower you with the requisite information, historical context, and
analytical frameworks necessary for effective engagement during the
conference. We invite you to delve into the depths of this guide, acquaint
yourselves with the intricacies of the agenda, and prepare to contribute
meaningfully to the discussions within the UNSC.
May your deliberations be enlightening, your resolutions impactful, and your
diplomatic acumen shine forth.
With best regards,
Sarthak Pandit {Chairperson}
and
Piyush Pariwakam {Chairperson}
COMMITTEE HISTORY AND MANDATE
One of the United Nations six main bodies, the United Nations Security Council
(UNSC) is in charge of safeguarding global security and peace, proposing new
UN members for inclusion to the General Assembly, and approving any
amendments to the UN Charter. It has the authority to impose international
sanctions, launch military operations, and form peacekeeping missions. The
only UN body with the power to impose legally binding resolutions on member
nations is the UNSC. Each of its fifteen members has one vote. According to the
United Nations Charter, all Members are required to abide with Council
decisions. Five of the fifteen members of the Security Council—China, France,
Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—are permanent members.
Any substantive Security Council resolution is subject to the veto (blocking)
power of the permanent members. This veto power does not apply to any votes
or matters that come before the General Assembly or emergency special
sessions of the General Assembly. The remaining ten members are chosen
regionally and serve two-year terms. The group's members alternate monthly
holding the presidency. When determining whether there is a violation or
imminent danger to the peace, the Security Council is in charge. It suggests
ways of altering the terms of settlement and encourages parties to a conflict to
settle it peacefully. The Security Council occasionally has the option of using
sanctions or even approving the use of force in order to preserve or restore
global peace and security.
Article 30 of the Charter stipulates that the Security Council shall adopt its own
rules of procedure, and in 1946, the council adopted its Provisional Rules of
Procedure(S/96). Subsequently, the Provisional Rules of Procedure were
modified on several occasions; the last revision was made in 1982(S/96/Rev.7)
in order to add Arabic as the sixth official language, in conformity with General
Assembly resolution 35/219 of 17 December 1980.
Under the United Nations Charter, the functions and powers of the Security
Council are:
● to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles
and purposes of the United Nations;
● to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international
friction;
● to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;
● to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;
● to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to
recommend what action should be taken;
● to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not
involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;
● to take military action against an aggressor;
● to recommend the admission of new Members;
● to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in "strategic areas";
● to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the
Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the
International Court of Justice.
Mandate:
The United Nations Charter established six main organs of the United Nations,
including the Security Council. It gives primary responsibility for maintaining
international peace and security to the Security Council, which may meet
whenever peace is threatened.
According to the Charter, the United Nations has four purposes:
● to maintain international peace and security;
● to develop friendly relations among nations;
● to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for
human rights;
● and to be a centre for harmonising the actions of nations.
All members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions
of the Security Council. While other organs of the United Nations make
recommendations to member states, only the Security Council has the power to
make decisions that member states are then obligated to implement under the
Charter. When a complaint concerning a threat to peace is brought before it, the
Council’s first action is usually to recommend that the parties try to reach
agreement by peaceful means.
The Council may:
● set forth principles for such an agreement;
● undertake investigation and mediation, in some cases;
● dispatch a mission;
● appoint special envoys; or
● request the Secretary-General to use his good offices to achieve a pacific
settlement of the dispute.
When a dispute leads to hostilities, the Council’s primary concern is to bring
them to an end as soon as possible. In that case, the Council may:
● issue ceasefire directives that can help prevent an escalation of the conflict;
● dispatch military observers or a peacekeeping force to help reduce tensions,
separate opposing forces, and establish a calm in which peaceful settlements
may be sought. Beyond this, the Council may opt for enforcement measures,
including:
● economic sanctions, arms embargoes, financial penalties and restrictions, and
travel bans;
● severance of diplomatic relations;
● blockade;
● or even collective military action.
The primary goal is to aim at those liable for the international community's
condemned policies or practices while minimizing the repercussions of the
actions taken on other segments of the population and the economy.
ii. Procedure
The implementation of procedural rules within any committee serves the
fundamental purpose of fostering a structured and efficient debate. In the
context of our proceedings, the committee will strictly adhere to the
procedural guidelines outlined in the UNA-USA Rules of Procedure. It is
crucial to emphasise that while the Executive Board is committed to
upholding these rules, the paramount focus remains on engaging in
substantive discussions regarding the agenda. Delegates are encouraged to
express their views openly and should not hesitate to contribute their
perspectives on the agenda, without being unduly constrained by procedural
concerns.
iii. Key functions of the UNSC:
1. Peacekeeping: The UNSC may authorize the deployment of UN
peacekeeping missions to regions where conflicts have occurred or are
likely to occur. These missions aim to help maintain peace, stabilise
situations, and protect civilians.
2. Conflict Resolution: The Security Council can take measures to resolve
ongoing conflicts by urging parties to negotiate or mediating between
conflicting parties to find peaceful solutions.
3. Imposing Sanctions: The UNSC has the authority to impose economic
sanctions and other measures against states or individuals that pose a
threat to international peace and security.
4. Authorization of Military Action: In extreme cases, the Security Council can
authorize military action to enforce its resolutions or protect civilians in conflict
zones. This action is typically taken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter,
which allows for measures, including the use of force, to maintain or restore
international peace and security.
5. Peacebuilding and Post-Conflict Reconstruction: The UNSC is involved
in long-term efforts to promote peacebuilding and reconstruction in
conflict-affected regions, aiming to prevent a relapse into violence.
6. Responding to Non-State Threats: The Security Council also addresses
non-state actors, such as terrorist organisations, that may threaten
international peace and security.
Formal Debate:
1) General Speaker’s List (GSL) - This is basically a speech that allows a
delegate to present his/her introductory stance on the crisis in the beginning
of the committee. It will allow the countries to understand the various
standpoints of other countries as we begin with the debate. There shall be Yields
or Points of Information for this speech. The default time limit of this speech is
90 seconds.
2) Special Speaker’s List (SSL) - This is a speech which enables a delegate to
present his/her country’s stance on a particular topic. It works similar to a GSL
while the only difference is stances being on a topic rather than an entire
agenda. It has a default time limit of 1 minute 30 seconds (90 seconds). It has all
the yields and points similar to a GSL.
Informal Debate:
1) Moderated Caucus - These are motions that are used to give specialised
speeches on subtopics of the whole agenda. They have a maximum individual
speaker’s time limit of 2 min and total time limit of 20 mins. The
recommendation for a moderated caucus must include a time limit for delegate
remarks and a time limit for the entire caucus (e.g. "The nation of [country
name] moves for a five minute moderated caucus with a 30 second speaking
time."). This can also be extended by a time duration that is equal to half the
total time limit it was raised for, by proposing a motion to extend.
2) Unmoderated Caucus - This motion allows the delegates to enter an
informal session which the delegates can use for lobbying, documentation and
other purposes. This can also be extended by raising a motion similar to a
moderated caucus with only the time limit for the entire caucus.
Points:
Point of Personal Privilege-
Personal inconvenience e.g. inaudibility of some part of the speech of
another delegate, CAN interrupt an active speaker
Point of Order-
Used to point out inaccuracies in procedure and if allowed, even on factual
inaccuracies within the speeches of other delegates, CANNOT interrupt an
active speaker
Point of Parliamentary Inquiry-
Used to clarify doubts on the rules of procedure, CANNOT interrupt a speaker
Point of Information-
Used to ask questions to other delegates on their speeches, CANNOT interrupt
an active speaker
Yields:
1. Yield to Points of Information-
Yielding the remaining time to other delegates so that they can question
you on the speech you made.
2. Yield to Another Delegate-
Yielding remaining time to some specific delegate to let her/him make
her/his speech. Prior consent to the yield by the other delegate is
necessary.
3. Yield to the Executive Board-
Yielding the remaining time to the EB. Such yielded time is deemed
elapsed by the EB but not always. Such time usage is up to the discretion
of the EB.
iv. Foreign policy
Understanding and articulating the foreign policy of the assigned country is
pivotal for delegates. Foreign policy serves as the guiding compass that
navigates a nation's interactions on the global stage. It encapsulates a
comprehensive set of principles, objectives, and strategies that shape a
country's stance on various international issues, including peacekeeping
operations and crisis response. Deviating from one's country's foreign policy
without a valid justification is considered a significant error for a delegate.
In the context of the UNSC, delegates are tasked with representing the
intricate nuances of their respective nations' foreign policies. This entails a
profound exploration of historical precedents, regional alliances, and the
overarching diplomatic philosophy that informs a country's approach to
international relations. The examination should extend to the nation's
commitments to the United Nations Charter and its willingness to contribute
resources, both human and financial, to UN peacekeeping missions.
v. Role of the Executive Board
The primary responsibility of the Executive Board is to assist in guiding the
debate, although it is the committee members who ultimately influence the
direction and dynamics of the discussion. Delegates, being integral
constituents of the committee, are encouraged to openly express their
opinions and perspectives without reservation. Nonetheless, the Executive
Board retains the authority to raise questions and request clarifications at
any juncture, aiming to enrich the debate and gauge participants'
comprehension.
EVIDENCE IN COMMITTEE
Evidence or proof from the following sources will be accepted as credible by
the committee:
1. News Resources:
a. Reuters ([Link]
Any Reuters’ article that explicitly mentions the fact mentioned or
contradicts the fact mentioned by another delegate in council may be cited
to support claims made in the committee.
b. State operated News Agencies
The State that owns the News Agency may benefit or fall victim by these
revelations. These reports may be used to advocate for or against any nation
as a whole if they are reliable or substantial enough, but in that case, any
other member of the council may refute them.
Some examples are:
i. Russia: RIA Novosti ([Link]
ii. Iran: RNAI ([Link]
iii. China: Xinhua News Agency and CCTV ([Link]
2. Government Reports:
These narratives can be used in a manner similar to that of State Operated News
Agencies and can be perpetually refuted by another nation. The Executive
Board, however, may nevertheless consider a report as reliable information
notwithstanding a given country's denial of it. Some examples are:
a. Government Websites like the State Department of the United States of
America ([Link] or the Ministry of Defense of the Russian
Federation ([Link]
b. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of various nations like India
([Link] or People’s Republic of China
([Link]
c. Permanent Representatives to the United Nations Reports
([Link]
d. Multilateral Organisations like NA TO ([Link] ASEAN
([Link] OPEC ([Link] etc.
3. UN Reports:
For the Executive Board, all UN Reports are regarded as reliable sources of
information or proof.
a. UN Bodies like the UNSC ([Link] or UNGA
([Link]
b. UN Affiliated bodies like the International Atomic Energy Agency
([Link] World Bank ([Link]
International Monetary Fund ([Link] International
Committee of the Red Cross ([Link] etc.
c. Treaty Based Bodies like the Antarctic Treaty System
([Link] the International Criminal Court
([Link]
NOTE:
Under no circumstances will sources like Wikipedia, Amnesty International,
or newspapers like the Times of India, etc. be accepted as
PROOF/EVIDENCE. But if the material provided in such sources is in line
with the beliefs of a Government, they can be used to gain a better
understanding of any topic or even be brought up in discussion.
Introduction-
The conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic stands as one of the defining crises of
contemporary international relations and a persistent challenge to the
international peace and security framework established after the Second World
War. Since 2011, Syria has transformed from a sovereign state experiencing
internal unrest into a fragmented battlefield involving global powers, regional
rivals, non state armed groups, and transnational terrorist organizations. The
involvement of the United States, particularly through direct military
intervention, has played a decisive role in shaping both the trajectory of the
conflict and the broader geopolitical environment surrounding it.
United States military interventions in Syria cannot be viewed in isolation. They
are part of a wider pattern of post Cold War interventions justified through
counterterrorism, humanitarian protection, and the defense of international
norms such as the prohibition of chemical weapons. At the same time, these
interventions have raised fundamental questions about state sovereignty,
selective enforcement of international law, and the erosion of collective security
mechanisms under the United Nations system. For many states, Syria represents
a cautionary example of how unilateral or coalition based military action can
reshape regional orders while bypassing consensus within the Security Council.
The agenda before the committee requires delegates to critically evaluate
whether United States actions in Syria have reduced threats to international
peace or contributed to their expansion. While Washington argues that its
presence has been essential in defeating the Islamic State and preventing mass
atrocities, critics contend that US interventions have prolonged instability,
encouraged proxy warfare, and heightened tensions among major powers. These
divergent interpretations underscore the political polarization that has repeatedly
paralyzed the Security Council on Syria related matters. Beyond immediate
military outcomes, the Syrian case raises existential concerns for the
international system itself. The normalization of cross border strikes, the
ambiguity surrounding self defense against non state actors, and the absence of
accountability mechanisms risk weakening the UN Charter’s foundational
principles. As conflicts increasingly involve non-state threats operating across
borders, the precedent set in Syria may influence future interventions
worldwide. For the UNSC, addressing this agenda is not merely about Syria, but
about reaffirming or redefining the rules governing the use of force in the
twenty-first century. Delegates must therefore engage with both the strategic
realities on the ground and the long term implications for international peace,
security, and multilateral governance.
Historical Context-
The origins of the Syrian conflict are deeply rooted in the country’s political
structure, socio economic conditions, and regional environment. Governed by
the Baath Party since 1963, Syria developed into a centralized authoritarian
state characterized by limited political freedoms, extensive security apparatuses,
and concentrated economic power. While the state maintained stability for
decades, underlying grievances related to unemployment, corruption, rural
marginalization, and political exclusion steadily accumulated. In early 2011,
inspired by uprisings across the Arab world, Syrians took to the streets
demanding reforms, accountability, and greater political participation. The
government’s response was swift and forceful, involving mass arrests, live fire
against protesters, and the deployment of military units to restive areas. This
crackdown transformed peaceful demonstrations into an armed uprising as
defectors and civilian groups took up arms against the state. By 2012, Syria had
descended into a full scale civil war marked by extreme fragmentation.
Opposition forces ranged from secular nationalist groups to Islamist factions
with competing ideologies and foreign backers. The collapse of state authority
in large areas created fertile ground for extremist organizations, most notably
the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, which capitalized on chaos to establish
territorial control across eastern Syria and western Iraq. Regional powers
rapidly became involved. Iran provided military advisers, funding, and allied
militias to support the Syrian government, viewing Damascus as a critical link
in its regional influence network. Gulf states supported various opposition
factions, while Türkiye prioritized border security and opposition to Kurdish
armed groups. The conflict reached a new level of internationalization in 2015
when Russia intervened militarily at the request of the Syrian government,
altering battlefield dynamics and ensuring the survival of the Assad
administration. This complex historical backdrop is essential to understanding
United States intervention. US actions occurred within an already crowded and
volatile theater, shaped by years of violence, sectarian polarization, and
competing regional ambitions. Any assessment of US involvement must
therefore account for the layered and evolving nature of the Syrian conflict.
Importance of the United Nations on the Agenda-
The Syrian conflict has repeatedly tested the authority, unity, and effectiveness
of the United Nations, particularly the Security Council. Since 2011, the
Council has convened numerous emergency sessions and debated dozens of
draft resolutions addressing ceasefires, sanctions, humanitarian access, and the
use of chemical weapons. Despite these efforts, deep political divisions among
permanent members have often resulted in vetoes or watered down
compromises. At the core of these divisions lies a fundamental disagreement
over sovereignty and intervention. Some members argue that the Syrian
government retains its sovereign right to combat internal threats and that
external military action without consent violates the UN Charter. Others
maintain that large scale human rights violations and the threat posed by
transnational terrorism justify intervention when the state is unwilling or unable
to protect civilians or prevent its territory from being used as a base for attacks.
United States military interventions in Syria have intensified this debate. While
Washington has invoked collective self defense and the need to uphold
international norms, the absence of explicit Security Council authorization has
fueled accusations of illegality and double standards. This has weakened the
Council’s credibility and reinforced perceptions that international law is applied
selectively by powerful states.
Beyond legal questions, the UN’s humanitarian role in Syria has been immense
yet constrained. UN agencies have provided life saving assistance to millions of
civilians, often under dangerous conditions. However, military escalation and
political deadlock have limited access and undermined long term recovery
efforts. The continued presence of foreign forces, including those of the United
States, complicates coordination and raises concerns about the militarization of
humanitarian spaces. For the Security Council, Syria underscores the urgent
need for reform in conflict prevention, mediation, and enforcement
mechanisms. Evaluating US interventions through a UN lens requires delegates
to consider how unilateral military actions affect multilateral diplomacy and
whether they strengthen or erode the collective security system.
Intervention of the USA in Syria-
United States involvement in Syria developed gradually and was shaped by
shifting domestic and international priorities. In the early years of the conflict,
the US focused on diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and limited support
for opposition groups. Washington called for political transition but avoided
large scale military engagement, wary of another protracted Middle Eastern
conflict. This approach changed dramatically in 2014 with the rapid expansion
of ISIS. The group’s seizure of territory, declaration of a caliphate, and
involvement in international terrorist attacks prompted the US to lead a global
coalition against it. Airstrikes were launched in Syria without the consent of the
Syrian government, justified under the doctrine of collective self defense of Iraq
and the need to address an imminent transnational threat. Over time, the US
deployed special operations forces and established partnerships with local
actors, most notably the Syrian Democratic Forces. This cooperation proved
militarily effective, culminating in the territorial defeat of ISIS by 2019.
However, it also created new geopolitical tensions, particularly with Türkiye,
which viewed Kurdish dominated forces as linked to separatist movements
within its own borders. In addition to counterterrorism operations, the US
conducted direct strikes against Syrian government targets in response to
alleged chemical weapons use in 2017 and 2018. These actions were framed as
deterrence measures aimed at enforcing international norms, yet they bypassed
Security Council authorization and were criticized by several states as
escalatory and unlawful. The long term objectives of US intervention remain
contested. While official statements emphasize stability and the prevention of
extremist resurgence, critics argue that the lack of a comprehensive political
strategy has entrenched de facto partition and prolonged foreign military
presence. The US role in Syria thus exemplifies the tension between tactical
military success and strategic ambiguity.
Current Conflict-
More than a decade after the outbreak of war, Syria remains deeply fragmented.
The Syrian government controls most major urban centers with continued
support from Russia and Iran. Opposition forces retain influence in limited
areas, while Kurdish led administrations govern parts of the northeast under the
protection of US forces. Although large-scale combat has declined, the conflict
is far from resolved. Sporadic clashes, insurgent attacks, and foreign airstrikes
continue to destabilize the country. The risk of confrontation among external
actors remains significant, particularly in regions where US, Russian, Iranian,
and Turkish interests intersect. The humanitarian situation is dire. Millions of
Syrians remain displaced internally or as refugees, and economic collapse has
exacerbated poverty and food insecurity. Sanctions, infrastructure destruction,
and limited international investment hinder reconstruction efforts. The
continued presence of foreign militaries, including the United States, shapes
local power dynamics and complicates prospects for national reconciliation.
From an international security perspective, Syria remains a potential flashpoint
for broader escalation. The persistence of extremist cells, unresolved political
grievances, and competing foreign agendas create conditions for renewed
violence. US military involvement, while focused on counterterrorism, is
therefore inseparable from the wider instability affecting the region.
RELEVANT LAWS AND REGULATIONS-
Due to varying legal systems, political environments, and degrees of security,
the MENA region has a wide range of laws and regulations pertaining to
counterterrorism. To combat the threat of terrorism, many nations in the region
have adopted some common themes and strategies. Here are some general
strategies and illustrations of legislation pertaining to tackling terrorism in the
MENA region:
1. Anti-Terrorism Legislation: Several nations in the MENA region have
passed specific anti-terrorism laws that define terrorism, impose penalties for
engaging in terrorist activity, and outline methods to locate and prosecute
terrorists. These laws frequently give authorities expanded authority for
monitoring, detaining, and prosecuting those accused of involvement in
terrorism.
2. Criminalization of Terrorist Acts: Anti-terrorism laws frequently render an
array of terrorist-related activities that include planning, funding, recruiting, and
committing terrorist attacks. Additionally, attempts to join or support terrorist
organisations are criminalized under these laws, as well as the dissemination of
information that encourages terrorism.
3. Counter-Financing Measures: Governments have set rules and regulations
into force to maintain surveillance on and regulate the flow of funds to terrorist
organisations. This entails the seizure of assets, the barring of financial
transactions, and the prevention of NGOs and charities being used to fund
terrorism. It's crucial to remember that, despite the fact that these actions are
meant to fight terrorism, worries have been expressed regarding possible power
abuses, human rights violations, and the repression of political dissent while
these actions are being used to fight terrorism. In the region, it is still difficult to
strike a compromise between maintaining security and preserving human rights.
The efficiency of these measures can also change depending on the political
environment, the capability of law enforcement, and the general stability of each
nation. Because of this, attempts to combat terrorism in the MENA area
necessitate a thorough and context-sensitive strategy that targets both security
issues and the underlying socio-political causes of radicalization and extremism.
Country Specific Angles for P5 and Elected Members-
1. United States-
As the primary actor under scrutiny, the United States must defend the legality,
necessity, and outcomes of its military interventions in Syria. The US position
emphasizes counterterrorism, particularly the defeat of ISIS, and frames its
actions within the doctrine of collective self defense and the responsibility to
uphold international norms such as the prohibition of chemical weapons.
Delegates representing the US should argue that intervention prevented the
spread of transnational terrorism, protected allies, and avoided a larger
humanitarian catastrophe. At the same time, they must address criticisms
regarding sovereignty violations, the absence of explicit UNSC authorization,
and the long term sustainability of a continued military presence.
2. Russia-
Russia approaches the Syrian conflict through the lens of state sovereignty and
invited intervention. As a key ally of the Syrian government, Russia argues that
foreign military forces operating without Damascus’ consent violate
international law and destabilize the region. Russian delegates are likely to
portray US actions as selective, unilateral, and aimed at regime weakening
rather than genuine peace building. Moscow also highlights the dangers of
precedent, warning that normalization of unauthorized interventions undermines
the UN Charter and could be used against any state in the future.
3. China-
China traditionally emphasizes non interference, territorial integrity, and
political dialogue. In the Syrian context, China has been critical of unilateral
military interventions and skeptical of regime change driven approaches.
Chinese delegates should focus on the long term risks posed by weakening
sovereignty norms and the destabilizing effects of prolonged foreign military
presence. At the same time, China recognizes the threat of terrorism and may
support multilateral counterterrorism efforts if clearly mandated by the Security
Council. Economic reconstruction and development driven stability are likely to
be key Chinese priorities.
4. United Kingdom-
The United Kingdom has largely aligned with the United States on Syria,
participating in coalition airstrikes against ISIS and supporting strikes in
response to chemical weapons use. UK delegates should emphasize
humanitarian protection, norm enforcement, and alliance credibility. However,
they may also position themselves as advocates for stronger multilateral
oversight and clearer legal frameworks for intervention. The UK can play a
mediating role by acknowledging sovereignty concerns while defending limited,
targeted military action.
5. France-
France has been one of the most vocal European critics of the Syrian
government and a strong proponent of action against chemical weapons use.
French delegates are likely to stress moral responsibility, civilian protection, and
accountability for war crimes. At the same time, France has expressed
frustration with UNSC paralysis and may argue that inaction carries its own
risks to international peace. Balancing advocacy for intervention with calls for
renewed political negotiations will be central to the French position.
QARMA {Questions a Resolution Must Answer}-
1. How can the Security Council use its Chapter VI powers, particularly
Article 34 of the UN Charter, to authorize investigations or fact-finding
missions into the presence and actions of foreign forces in Syria to assess
threats to international peace and security?
2. How can the Council, in line with Article 2(4) and Chapter VI of the UN
Charter, urge States to respect Syria’s sovereignty and resolve disputes
through peaceful means rather than the unilateral use of force?
3. What measures can the Council adopt to strengthen compliance with
international humanitarian law in Syria, including Common Article 3 of
the Geneva Conventions and customary IHL, in order to protect civilians
and detainees?
4. How can the Council employ Chapter VI mechanisms to support and
advance diplomatic efforts and inclusive political dialogue in Syria,
consistent with the Charter principles of peaceful settlement?
5. What steps can the Council encourage to ensure humanitarian access,
respect for ceasefires, and the delivery of relief to civilians in accordance
with the Geneva Conventions?
6. What Chapter VII measures under Articles 39–42 of the UN Charter
should the Council consider to deter or respond to unauthorized military
interventions in Syria and uphold international peace and security?
7. Should the Security Council consider mechanisms for international
criminal accountability, including referral to competent tribunals, for war
crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Syria in accordance
with the Rome Statute and international law?
8. How should the Council assess claims of self-defense under Article 51 of
the UN Charter to ensure they do not undermine the prohibition on the
use of force under Article 2(4)?
9. What enforcement actions under Chapter VII can the Council authorize to
prevent military escalation in Syria and maintain regional stability?
10.How can the Council reaffirm that any military intervention in Syria
without Security Council authorization is inconsistent with the UN
Charter and international law?
Conclusion-
United States military interventions in Syria have had profound and lasting
consequences for international peace and security. They contributed
significantly to the defeat of ISIS as a territorial entity and demonstrated the
capacity of coalition based operations against non state threats. At the same
time, they intensified geopolitical rivalries, challenged the primacy of the
United Nations Security Council, and raised enduring questions about the
legality and legitimacy of unilateral action. For the UNSC, the Syrian case
highlights the tension between moral imperatives, strategic interests, and legal
constraints. Delegates must assess whether existing norms are adequate to
address contemporary security threats or whether they are being eroded through
practice. The precedents set in Syria will shape future responses to conflicts
involving terrorism, humanitarian crises, and great power competition.
Ultimately, the Council’s responsibility extends beyond evaluating past actions.
It must seek pathways toward de-escalation, political settlement, and the
restoration of Syrian sovereignty in a manner consistent with international law.
How the UNSC addresses the repercussions of US intervention in Syria will
influence not only the fate of one nation, but the credibility of the international
system as a whole.